CASE LAW DRAFT NO. 04/2024 On the seizure and forfeiture of instruments and means used in the commission of a crime that have not been title transferred (Please note that this image is not related to the specific case being discussed).

CASE LAW DRAFT NO. 04/2024

On the seizure and forfeiture of instruments and means used in the commission of a crime that have not been title transferred

Approved by the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court on [date] [month] 2024 and published under Decision No. [number]/QĐ-CA on [date] [month] 2024 by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 282/2021/HS-PT dated December 6^th, 2021, of the People’s Court of Đồng Nai Province concerning the case of “Robbery” and “False Imprisonment” against the defendant Bùi Thị T and accomplices.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 10 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Factual Background:

This case involves a motor vehicle and a crime committed by the defendant. The defendant purchased a car from another person through a power of attorney contract. However, the defendant failed to complete the mandatory title transfer procedures following the purchase. Despite the incomplete transfer, the seller confirmed the sale of the car to the defendant and does not contest the defendant’s ownership of the vehicle. Unfortunately, the defendant subsequently used this car as an instrument and means to commit a crime.

– Legal Resolution:

Considering the presented facts, the Court must determine the ownership of the car used in the crime. While the title transfer remains incomplete, the seller’s confirmation of the sale solidifies the defendant’s claim of ownership. Therefore, the Court must declare the car to be the property of the defendant. However, due to its use in the commission of a crime, the Court must then order the car seized and forfeited. This means the car will be taken into state possession and its value will be added to the state budget.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Point a, Clause 1, Article 47 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).

– Point a, Clause 2, Article 106 of the 2015 Penal Procedure Code.

Keywords:

“Purchase of car through power of attorney contract”; “Use of car as an instrument and means to commit a crime”; “Seizure and forfeiture into the state budget”.

CASE DETAILS

According to the documents in the case file and the proceedings at the trial, the case details are summarized as follows:

Bùi Thị T, Lê Thị Tuyết H, Mai Thị H1, and Nguyễn Hồng T1 were engaged in a business relationship involving land transactions which became fraught with monetary disputes. On October 24^th, 2019, Bùi Thị T approached Nguyễn Văn K to collect a debt on her behalf, to which K agreed. Due to T1 blocking T’s phone number, T couldn’t contact T1 directly. Instead, she devised a plan with K to simulate a call to T1 under the guise of needing assistance with land documentation. T1 fell for the ruse and agreed to meet at the “Na Na” café in Ward A, City B, Đồng Nai Province.

After arranging the meeting, K enlisted Phạm Văn L to accompany him, which L agreed to. Meanwhile, T rented a car from Nguyễn Văn T2 and Mai Thị H1 to transport them to the café. Upon arrival, K and L entered the café while T2, H1, and T remained in the car. T1 arrived at the café where K was waiting, and T and H1 joined them inside. It was at this point that T handed T1 a debt note indicating T1 owed VND 211,000,000 to Lê Thị Tuyết H, demanding T1 repay T VND 60,000,000 (as T had already paid VND 60,000,000 to a land buyer from the owed sum).

T1, upon reading the debt note, disputed its validity, claiming the debt was owed to H, not T. T then summoned H to the café. During the wait for H’s arrival, T1 tore up the debt note in the restroom, which T discovered upon H’s arrival. T demanded T1 write a new debt note specifying: “T1 owes T VND 60,000,000 and owes H VND 151,000,000.” H1 was instructed by T to retrieve paper for T1 to use for rewriting, prompting H1 to fetch paper from the car.

However, T1 deliberately wrote incorrect information multiple times, leading K to physically assault T1. Subsequently, K and L forcibly escorted T1 to the car bearing license plate 60A-242.93, driven by T2, waiting nearby, and coerced T1 into the vehicle. Inside, H1 occupied the front passenger seat alongside T2, with T1 seated between K and L in the second row, while T sat in the back and H followed on a motorbike.

During the journey, as they approached the Vũng Tàu intersection, T1 attempted to attract attention from bystanders, prompting L to strike T1 in the abdomen, dissuading further outcry. Upon reaching a rubber plantation in Area A, Commune B, District L, K, L, and T compelled T1 to draft a debt note payable to T for VND 60,000,000. While composing the note, T1 saw a tanker truck passing by and sought assistance, but K used a piece of rubberwood to strike T1, threatening, “This is your last chance, will you write it or not?”

Out of fear, T1 complied and wrote the debt note as directed by T, stipulating: “T1 borrowed T VND 60,000,000, mortgaging motorbike license plate 60F2-858.45 for VND 30,000,000, with the remaining VND 30,000,000”. After completing the note, T coerced T1 into signing it, and H was instructed to use her red lipstick to mark T1’s thumbprint on the document, with H1 and H signing as witnesses.

Subsequently, T searched T1’s pockets, retrieving a wallet containing VND 1,400,000. T took VND 1,000,000 to pay T2 and H1 for the car rental, retained VND 400,000, and returned VND 100,000 to T1 for a taxi fare home. The group then departed in the car, while T1 proceeded to report the incident at the police station in Ward B.

Exhibits Seized:

– One debt promissory note;

– One motorbike with license plate 60F2-858.45 and accompanying vehicle registration;

– One car with license plate 60A-242.93 and accompanying vehicle registration;

– One memory card retrieved from the dashcam of the car with license plate 60A-242.93;

– One USB containing footage from the camera at the “Na Na” café;

– One rubber wood stick, 30 cm long, 2.5 cm in diameter.

* According to the Asset Valuation Report No. 30 dated March 23^rd, 2020, by the Asset Valuation Council in Criminal Proceedings of District L, it was concluded that the motorbike with license plate 60F2-858.45 is valued at VND 24,500,000 (twenty-four million five hundred thousand dong).

* In the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 61/2021/HS-ST dated April 2^nd, 2021, the People’s Court of Long Thành District applied Point d, đ Clause 2 Article 168; Clause 1 Article 157; Point s Clause 1 Article 51; Article 54; Article 55; and Article 58 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) (additionally applying Point b Clause 1 and Clause 2 Article 51 of the 2015 Penal Code for the defendant Bùi Thị T and Article 56 of the 2015 Penal Code for the defendant Phạm Văn L), and sentenced:

– Defendant Bùi Thị T to 6 (six) years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment”. The combined sentence for both crimes requires defendant T to serve a total of 6 (six) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment.

– Defendant Nguyễn Văn K to 5 (five) years and 6 (six) months of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment”. The combined sentence for both crimes requires defendant K to serve a total of 6 (six) years and 2 (two) months of imprisonment.

– Defendant Phạm Văn L to 5 (five) years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment.” The combined sentence for both crimes requires defendant L to serve a total of 5 (five) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment. Additionally, defendant L must serve a combined sentence of 7 (seven) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment, including a 2 (two)-year prison term for “Illegal possession of narcotics” as per Judgment No. 143/2020/HS-ST dated March 26^th, 2020, of the People’s Court of Biên Hòa City, Đồng Nai Province.

Judicial Measures:

Pursuant to Article 106 of the Penal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017):

– One rubber wood stick, 30 cm long, 2.5 cm in diameter is to be seized and destroyed.

– One motorbike with license plate 60F2-858.45 and accompanying vehicle registration, and the amount of VND 1,400,000 (one million four hundred thousand dong) are to be returned to Mr. Nguyễn Hồng T1.

– One car with license plate 60A-242.93, KIA brand, white color, engine number G4KAEH410974, chassis number 51M5FC061659 and accompanying vehicle registration under the name of Phạm Thụy Anh Đ, is to be seized and forfeited to the state budget.

Additionally, the first-instance court declared penalties for other defendants, court fees, and rights to appeal as per the law.

On April 8^th, 2021, the defendants Bùi Thị T, Nguyễn Văn K, and Phạm Văn L filed appeals requesting sentence reductions.

On April 16^th, 2021, the defendant Mai Thị H1 filed an appeal requesting the appellate court to return the car with license plate 60A-242.93 to her.

At the trial, the defendants T, K, L, and H1 maintained their appeals and continued to request the court to reconsider.

Opinion of the Representative of the People’s Procuracy of Đồng Nai Province:

The actions of the defendants Bùi Thị T, Nguyễn Văn K, and Phạm Văn L constituted the crimes of “Robbery” and “False Imprisonment” as stipulated in Point d, đ Clause 2 Article 168 and Clause 1 Article 157 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017). The first-instance court considered mitigating circumstances and sentenced:

– Defendant Bùi Thị T to 6 (six) years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment,” with a total combined sentence of 6 (six) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment.

– Defendant Nguyễn Văn K to 5 (five) years and 6 (six) months of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment,” with a total combined sentence of 6 (six) years and 2 (two) months of imprisonment.

– Defendant Phạm Văn L to 5 (five) years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment,” with a total combined sentence of 5 (five) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment, and a combined sentence of 7 (seven) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment, including a 2 (two)-year prison term for “Illegal possession of narcotics” as per Judgment No. 143/2020/HS-ST dated March 26^th, 2020, of the People’s Court of Biên Hòa City, Đồng Nai Province.

The appropriateness of sentences imposed on the defendants aligns with the gravity of their offenses. During the appeal, no new mitigating circumstances were presented, except for defendant T’s documentation highlighting her family’s challenging circumstances, notably her parents’ veteran status. Despite this, the People’s Procuracy recommended rejecting the appeals of defendants T, L, and K, affirming the first-instance judgment.

Regarding defendant Mai Thị H1’s appeal seeking the return of the car with license plate 60A-242.93, it was determined that this vehicle was instrumental in the commission of the crimes. Investigations confirmed the car’s registered owner as Phạm Thụy Anh Đ. On April 10^th, 2018, Ms. Đ and Mr. T3 sold the vehicle to Mr. Lê Thành N under a power of attorney contract. Subsequently, on March 20^th, 2019, Mr. N transferred ownership to defendant Mai Thị H1 through a similar power of attorney, without completing requisite title transfer procedures.

Although legally registered under Ms. Đ’s name, the car had effectively been sold to defendant H1, supported by the agreements of Ms. Đ, Mr. T3, and Mr. N confirming the sale and waiving further claims. Thus, the initial court’s decision to seize and forfeit the vehicle into the state budget due to its role in the defendants’ actions was lawful.

Consequently, defendant H1’s appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed, as per the recommendation of the People’s Procuracy to uphold the first-instance judgment.

Attorney Phạm Quốc V, representing defendant H1, argued that H1 had not signed any vehicle purchase contract with Ms. Đ, Mr. T3, or Mr. N. Currently, H1 has filed a lawsuit against Mr. N at the People’s Court of Biên Hòa City to contest the “Power of Attorney” contract.

The lawsuit requests termination of the March 20, 2019, power of attorney contract between H1 and Mr. N, demanding Mr. N return VND 340,000,000 to H1, with H1 returning the car with license plate 60A-242.93 to Mr. N. This ongoing legal action necessitates the appellate court consider returning the vehicle to defendant H1 to uphold the pending lawsuit at the People’s Court of Biên Hòa City.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] Based on the case particulars and evidence thoroughly examined during trial, the Appellate Panel reached the following conclusions:

[2] Regarding procedural matters, the defendants’ appeals were submitted within the statutory time frame, thus warranting consideration in the appellate proceedings.

[3] During the appellate hearing, defendants Bùi Thị T, Nguyễn Văn K, Phạm Văn L, and Mai Thị H1 admitted to all criminal acts as detailed in the first-instance judgment. Specifically:

[4] The defendants, including Bùi Thị T, Mai Thị H1, Lê Thị Tuyết H, and Nguyễn Hồng T1, were involved in a business relationship concerning land transactions, where T and H acted as sellers, H1 as the buyer, and T1 as the intermediary. Disputes over outstanding debts arose during their transactions. T1 owed money to T and H, with T repeatedly requesting repayment. When T1 refused and blocked T’s calls, T sought K’s assistance in arranging a meeting to reclaim the debt. K agreed and brought L along. 

On the morning of October 24^th, 2019, T rented a car from Nguyễn Văn T2 (H1’s husband) to transport L and K to the “Na Na” café in Ward A, City B, Đồng Nai Province. T2 drove the car, which also included T, L, K, and H1.

Upon arrival at the café, T2 parked outside while the others entered to meet T1. Inside, T presented a promissory note demanding repayment from Mr. T1, but the note indicated that Mr. T1 owed VND 211,000,000 to Ms. H, not defendant T. Consequently, Mr. T1 refused to pay defendant T and asked her to summon Ms. H to the café to resolve the issue.

After taking the promissory note from defendant T, Mr. T1 went to the restroom and tore it up. When Ms. H arrived at the café, defendant T discovered that Mr. T1 had destroyed the note and demanded that Mr. T1 write a new one. Defendant T asked defendant H1 to provide blank paper for Mr. T1 to write the new note.

After multiple failed attempts to write the correct content (each time writing incorrectly, defendant T asked defendant H1 to provide another sheet), defendant K punched Mr. T1 in the face. Then, defendants K and L each held one of Mr. T1’s arms and dragged him to the car, which T2 had waiting outside. They forced Mr. T1 into the car to be driven elsewhere by T2. In the car, H1 sat in the front passenger seat next to T2, with T1 seated in the middle of the second row, flanked by defendants L and K, while defendant T sat in the rear seat. Ms. H followed on a motorbike.

Upon reaching the Vũng Tàu intersection, Mr. T1 saw many people on the road and cried out for help but was threatened by defendant L. Fearing further assault, Mr. T1 stopped calling for help. Upon reaching area C (in area A, B Commune, L District, Đồng Nai Province), defendant K instructed T2 to drive into a rubber plantation. After stopping, defendants L, K, and T remained in the car, using defendant H1’s paper and pen to coerce Mr. T1 into writing a promissory note for VND 60,000,000.

Mr. T1 refused and asked to get out of the car to write the note. While writing the note outside, Mr. T1 saw a tanker truck pass by and ran for help, but defendant K struck him with a rubber wood stick, saying, “This is your last chance; will you write the note or not?” Fearing further assault, Mr. T1 wrote a promissory note for VND 60,000,000 (including VND 30,000,000 secured by the motorbike 60F2-858.45 and the remaining VND 30,000,000).

After writing the note, defendant T asked H to give her lipstick, using it to stamp Mr. T1’s fingerprint on the note, with H1 and H signing as witnesses. Defendant T then searched Mr. T1’s pockets, taking a wallet containing VND 1,400,000. Defendant T took VND 1,000,000 to pay T2 and kept the remaining VND 400,000. The total amount of money seized from Mr. T1 was VND 61,400,000.

[5] Based on the details of the criminal acts described above, defendants Bùi Thị T, Nguyễn Văn K, and Phạm Văn L were rightfully convicted by the first-instance court for “Robbery” under Point d (“use of weapons, means, or other dangerous methods”) and Point đ (“appropriating property valued from VND 50,000,000 to under VND 200,000,000”) Clause 2 of Article 168 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017), as well as for “False Imprisonment” under Clause 1 of Article 157 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).

This conviction was appropriate, accurately targeting the individuals involved and in strict accordance with the law.

[6] Considering the appeals filed by defendants Bùi Thị T, Nguyễn Văn K, and Phạm Văn L:

Their actions posed significant dangers to society. They not only directly violated the legal rights of ownership and personal freedom protected by law but also disrupted public order and security in the locality.

In this case, defendant T played a central role, actively planning and enlisting defendant K, renting a vehicle as a tool for the crime, and directly seizing VND 1,400,000 from the victim. Defendants K and L acted as accomplices, actively participating in the criminal acts, including physical assault, threats, abduction, and coercion of the victim into the vehicle.

Defendant K used physical force, striking the victim with a rubber wood stick when attempting to flee, while defendant L threatened further violence if the victim did not comply. These actions instilled fear in the victim, preventing resistance and compelling compliance with the defendants’ demands.

Therefore, defendant T deserves a harsher sentence compared to defendants K and L. The sentence should be stringent, reflecting the severity and nature of their actions, serving to isolate them from society for a period that allows for rehabilitation and education, and acting as a deterrent against similar criminal behavior in the community.

[7] During the sentencing phase, the first-instance court took into account the defendants’ honest confessions and expressions of remorse. Additionally, it recognized that the victim’s actions, notably tearing up the promissory note, partly contributed to the situation and the victim had also requested leniency for the defendants.

These factors are considered mitigating circumstances under Points s, Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 51 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017). However, the court inadvertently overlooked applying these mitigating factors in the sentencing of defendants K and L, highlighting an oversight that warrants correction in future judicial proceedings.

Defendant T made reparations to the victim for damages incurred, which the victim acknowledged and endorsed as a basis for reducing T’s sentence—a mitigating circumstance under Point b, Clause 1 of Article 51 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).

The defendants presented no aggravating circumstances but several mitigating factors. Therefore, the first-instance court’s application of Article 54 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017), resulting in sentences below the statutory minimum, and its use of Article 55 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) to aggregate sentences for both offenses, were lawful.

The first-instance court sentenced defendant Bùi Thị T to 6 years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment,” totaling 6 years and 8 months of imprisonment. Defendant Nguyễn Văn K was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment,” totaling 6 years and 2 months of imprisonment.

Defendant Phạm Văn L was sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment,” totaling 5 years and 8 months of imprisonment. These sentences were deemed appropriate and aligned with legal provisions.

[8] At the appellate level, both defendants, Nguyễn Văn K and Phạm Văn L, sought reductions in their sentences during the appellate hearing. However, their appeals lacked merit. Neither defendant presented any new mitigating circumstances to justify a lighter sentence. They failed to introduce any fresh evidence that could alter the initial judgement. Therefore, the appellate court finds their appeals unfounded and upholds the sentences imposed by the first-instance court. 

Defendant Bùi Thị T also requested a reduced sentence. Unlike the other defendants, she presented new mitigating circumstances that the first-instance court had not considered. These included documented evidence, verified by local authorities, detailing the hardship faced by her family.

Additionally, Bùi Thị T submitted proof of her parents’ military service: a First-Class Resistance Medal for her mother, Bùi Thị T4, and a Second-Class Resistance Medal for her father, Bùi Đình T5. These medals constitute mitigating circumstances under Clause 2, Article 51 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017).

Furthermore, the appellate court acknowledged other factors specific to Bùi Thị T’s situation. These included her gender, limited legal knowledge (having only completed 9 out of 12 years of compulsory education), and the unfortunate circumstance of contracting COVID-19 during the preparation for the appellate trial.

In light of these newly presented mitigating circumstances and Bùi Thị T’s specific situation, the appellate court accepts her appeal and grants a partial reduction in her sentence. This decision reflects the humanitarian spirit of the law, which allows for leniency towards those who demonstrate genuine remorse and whose circumstances warrant a second chance. The reduced sentence will allow Bùi Thị T to return to society sooner, where she can care for herself and support her elderly parents.

[9] Considering the appeal of defendant Mai Thị H1:

[10] Regarding the vehicle with license plate 60A-242.93 utilized by the defendants during the commission of the crime, driven by defendant Nguyễn Văn T2 (husband of defendant Mai Thị H1) and registered under Ms. Phạm Thị Anh Đ according to vehicle registration records and confirmation from the Provincial Police Department dated April 10, 2018, it was established that Ms. Đ and Mr. T3 sold the car to Mr. Lê Thành N via power of attorney contracts without completing the title transfer procedures as required (Exhibits 414-416, 459-460, 483-485).

On March 20, 2019, Mr. N subsequently sold the car to defendant Mai Thị H1 via a power of attorney contract, similarly without completing the title transfer procedures (Exhibits 412-413, 457-458).

Despite remaining legally registered under Ms. Phạm Thị Anh Đ, effective ownership of the car transferred to defendant H1, who holds full ownership rights, including possession, use, and disposition (pledge, gift, lease, or sale), as per the authorized scope in the power of attorney contracts. Confirmations from Ms. Đ, Mr. T3, and Mr. N affirmed the sale, full payment, and transfer of the vehicle, with no claims or disputes remaining concerning the car.

Therefore, it is established that the vehicle with license plate 60A-242.93 belongs to defendant Mai Thị H1.

Consequently, the first-instance court’s decision to apply Article 106 of the Penal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) to seize and forfeit the KIA car, white in color, with engine number G4KAEH410974, chassis number 51M5FC061659, and registration papers for the state budget was deemed appropriate and lawful.

This vehicle was used by defendants T2 and H1 in the commission of the crime, justifying its forfeiture according to legal provisions.

[11] Regarding court fees:

[12] The appeals of the defendants Nguyễn Văn K, Phạm Văn L, and Mai Thị H1 were not accepted, so the defendants must bear the appellate court fees.

[13] The appeal of the defendant Bùi Thị T was accepted, so the defendant is not required to bear the appellate court fees.

[14] The viewpoint and proposal of the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Đồng Nai Province partially align with the findings of the Trial Council and therefore partially accepted. However, the request to dismiss the appeal of defendant T was not accepted by the Appellate Panel.

[15] The viewpoint and proposal of defendant H1’s counsel, attorney V, are not in line with the findings of the Appellate Panel and thus not accepted.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

[1] Pursuant to points a and b Clause 1 Article 355, point c Clause 1 Article 357 of the 2015 Penal Procedure Code;

The appeal of defendants Nguyễn Văn K, Phạm Văn L, and Mai Thị H1 is not accepted; The appeal of defendant Bùi Thị T is partially accepted; The First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 61/2021/HS-ST dated April 2^nd, 2021 of the People’s Court of Long Thành District, is partially amended.

[2] Applying point d, clause 2 Article 168; clause 1 Article 157; point s, clause 1, clause 2 Article 51; Article 54; Article 55; Article 58 of the 2015 Criminal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) (Applying additional point b, clause 1 Article 51 of the 2015 Criminal Code for defendant Bùi Thị T; Article 56 of the 2015 Criminal Code for defendant Phạm Văn L):

– Defendant Bùi Thị T is sentenced to 05 (five) years imprisonment for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months imprisonment for “False Imprisonment”, with a total combined sentence of 05 (five) years 08 (eight) months imprisonment. The term of imprisonment starts from the date of arrest on March 12^th, 2020.

– Defendant Nguyễn Văn K is sentenced to 05 (five) years 06 (six) months imprisonment for “Robbery” and 08 (eight) months imprisonment for “False Imprisonment”, with a total combined sentence of 06 (six) years 02 (two) months imprisonment. The term of imprisonment starts from November 10^th, 2019.

– Defendant Phạm Văn L is sentenced to 5 (five) years of imprisonment for “Robbery” and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment for “False Imprisonment”, with a total combined sentence of 5 (five) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment, and a combined sentence of 7 (seven) years and 8 (eight) months of imprisonment, including a 2 (two)-year prison term for “Illegal possession of narcotics” as per Judgment No. 143/2020/HS-ST dated March 26^th, 2020, of the People’s Court of Biên Hòa City, Đồng Nai Province.

[3] Judicial Measures: Applying Article 106 of the Penal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017):

– One rubber wood stick, 30 cm long, 2.5 cm in diameter is to be seized and destroyed.

– One motorbike with license plate 60F2-858.45 and accompanying vehicle registration, and the amount of VND 1,400,000 (one million four hundred thousand dong) are to be returned to Mr. Nguyễn Hồng T1.

– One car with license plate 60A-242.93, KIA brand, white color, engine number G4KAEH410974, chassis number 51M5FC061659 and accompanying vehicle registration under the name of Phạm Thụy Anh Đ, is to be seized and forfeited to the state budget.

(According to Decision on transfer of exhibits dated November 10^th, 2020 of People’s Procuracy of Long Thành District, Report on transfer of exhibits, assets on November 12^th, 2020 and Receipt No. 06874 on November 12^th, 2020 of Civil Enforcement Department of Long Thành District).

[4] Regarding court fees: Applying Resolution 326/2016/UBTVQH-14 dated December 30^th, 2016 of the National Assembly.

– Defendants Nguyễn Văn K, Phạm Văn L, and Mai Thị H1 each must bear the appellate court fees of VND 200,000.

– Defendant Bùi Thị T is exempt from paying appellate court fees.

[5] Other Decisions of the first-instance Judgment that are not appealed or protested have legal effect from the expiry date of the appeal and protest periods.

The Appellate Judgment takes legal effect from the date of judgment.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[10] Regarding the vehicle with license plate 60A-242.93 utilized by the defendants during the commission of the crime, driven by defendant Nguyễn Văn T2 (husband of defendant Mai Thị H1) and registered under Ms. Phạm Thị Anh Đ according to vehicle registration records and confirmation from the Provincial Police Department dated April 10, 2018, it was established that Ms. Đ and Mr. T3 sold the car to Mr. Lê Thành N via power of attorney contracts without completing the title transfer procedures as required (Exhibits 414-416, 459-460, 483-485).

On March 20, 2019, Mr. N subsequently sold the car to defendant Mai Thị H1 via a power of attorney contract, similarly without completing the title transfer procedures (Exhibits 412-413, 457-458). Despite remaining legally registered under Ms. Phạm Thị Anh Đ, effective ownership of the car transferred to defendant H1, who holds full ownership rights, including possession, use, and disposition (pledge, gift, lease, or sale), as per the authorized scope in the power of attorney contracts.

Confirmations from Ms. Đ, Mr. T3, and Mr. N affirmed the sale, full payment, and transfer of the vehicle, with no claims or disputes remaining concerning the car.

Therefore, it is established that the vehicle with license plate 60A-242.93 belongs to defendant Mai Thị H1.

Consequently, the first-instance court’s decision to apply Article 106 of the Penal Procedure Code and Article 47 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) to seize and forfeit the KIA car, white in color, with engine number G4KAEH410974, chassis number 51M5FC061659, and registration papers for the state budget was deemed appropriate and lawful. This vehicle was used by defendants T2 and H1 in the commission of the crime, justifying its forfeiture according to legal provisions.”

REASON FOR THE DRAFT’S PROPOSAL

(The Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 282/2021/HS-PT dated December 6^th, 2021 of the People’s Court of Đồng Nai Province on the case of “Robbery”, “False Imprisonment” against defendant Bùi Thị T and accomplices)

Current Vietnamese law mandates the seizure and forfeiture to the state budget of exhibits used to commit crimes if they belong to the defendant (Point a, Clause 1, Article 47 of the 2015 Criminal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017); Point a, Clause 2, Article 106 of the Penal Procedure Code). However, practical application regarding such exhibits, particularly those registered under another person’s name, often lacks a unified approach.

This case exemplifies the challenge. The defendant purchased a car through a power of attorney contract but failed to complete the mandatory title transfer. Ownership of the car was undisputed between the defendant and the seller. Unfortunately, the defendant used this car as a tool in committing a crime.

While the purchase and sale were conducted through a power of attorney, the incomplete transfer left the car legally registered under the original owner’s name. Vietnamese law concerning power of attorney contracts grants the principal (seller) the right to modify the authorization at any time. Therefore, technically, the defendant wouldn’t be considered the legitimate owner until the transfer was finalized.

However, the key fact in this case is the lack of dispute regarding ownership between the defendant and the person named in the car’s registration documents. Considering this and the circumstances of the case, the Court ruled that the car belonged to the defendant and ordered its confiscation and transfer to the state budget. This decision aligned with the realities of the situation and relevant legal provisions.

The Legal and Scientific Management Department acknowledges the potential for varied interpretations in such cases. Therefore, the Court’s resolution in this judgement is proposed to become case law, providing guidance for handling exhibits in similar legal situations and promoting a more unified approach in the future.

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.